Planning for School Reopening and Recovery After … › sites › default › files ›...
Transcript of Planning for School Reopening and Recovery After … › sites › default › files ›...
Shelby Carvalho
Jack Rossiter
Noam Angrist
Susannah Hares
Rachel Silverman
An Evidence Kit for Policymakers
Planning for School Reopening and Recovery After COVID-19
Center for Global Development. 2020.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0
Center for Global Development
2055 L Street, NW Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20036
www.cgdev.org
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
1 Engaging Communities in School Reopening Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Targeting Resources Where They Are Most Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3 Getting Children Back to School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4 Making School Environments Safe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5 Recovering Learning Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Technical Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Many thanks to Radhika Bhula and John Floretta at J-PAL for contributing to the briefs, and to Laura Moscoviz
and Ana Minardi for research assistance.
The Center for Global Development is grateful for contributions from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
the Elma Relief Foundation, the UBS Optimus Foundation, and the Vitol Foundation in support of this work.
ii
Introduction
Most governments around the world have temporarily
closed schools in an attempt to contain the spread of
the COVID-19 pandemic. Many have launched distance
learning programs and are beginning to plan for recov-
ery, a phase that involves much more than reopening
the gates and readmitting students.
During the response, there may be opportunities for
governments to improve practices and “build back
better,” but decisions are being made under extreme
uncertainty. In this context, education policymak-
ing is particularly difficult but will be strongest when
it is: (1) informed by existing rigorous evidence;
(2) approached with a long-term perspective that prior-
itizes flexibility, communication, and trust; and (3) able
to be adapted based on new data and information
gained from community engagement and monitoring.
The short and accessible briefs collected here draw
on rigorous evidence relevant to the COVID-19 emer-
gency to formulate recommendations for policymak-
ers on five critical dimensions of school reopening and
recovery:
1. Engaging communities in reopening plans
2. Targeting resources to where they are most
needed
3. Getting children back to school
4. Making school environments safe
5. Recovering learning loss and building
back better
The briefs are accompanied by CGD’s COVID-19 edu-
cation policy tracker, which provides up-to-date
information on each country’s policy response and
reopening plans, as they emerge.
The World Bank, the World Health Organization,
UNESCO, UNICEF, Education International, the Inter-
agency Network for Education in Emergencies, and the
World Food Programme have released comprehensive
guidance on education policy responses to COVID-19
and planning frameworks for school reopening. This
evidence kit complements those resources.
In areas where the rigorous evidence is thin, we high-
light this and emphasize the importance of generat-
ing knowledge during this pandemic to inform policy
adaptations now and in future crises. Each brief is
complemented by an in-depth technical appendix
with details on the evidence supporting key findings
and recommendations.
There is still a huge amount to learn about the impacts of
each country’s education policy response to COVID-19;
it is too early to speculate on the effectiveness of different
choices, or their potential in different contexts. We will
be keeping our eye on the evidence as it emerges and,
in the months ahead, we will release additional analyses
of the latest evidence on promising practices and pre-
paring for future emergencies. In the meantime, CGD’s
COVID-19 education policy tracker provides up-to-date
information on each country’s policy choices.
1
1 . Engaging Communities in School Reopening Plans
Recommendations
To productively engage communities and
build the trust needed to design and imple-
ment effective reopening plans, policymakers
should:
• Prioritize community engagement early
to build trust, shape perceptions of risk,
and improve responses to government
policy.
• Share clear, credible, and consistent
messaging through multiple channels
to reach all groups and to match local
resources and norms.
Successful reopening and recovery rely on public trust
in the government. Trust can be built and maintained
by engaging communities in planning for reopen-
ing and by clearly communicating through credible
channels.
Policymakers will want access to evidence that sup-
ports their planning and decision making, and to draw
on relevant experience from elsewhere. This brief
summarizes available rigorous evidence regarding the
engagement of communities in planning for school
reopening and identifies two recommended actions
for policymakers based on that body of evidence.
Summary of Evidence
Trust, risk, and community participation A robust body of evidence suggests that establishing
public trust, managing fear and perceptions of risk,
and leveraging community engagement are key to
effective crisis response. Governments need to decide
how to engage community members in reopening
plans and implementation; what, when, and how often
information should be shared with affected commu-
nities; and with whom and through which channels to
communicate.
The evidence on building trust with communities
affected by emergencies shows that:
• Leveraging community involvement to build
trust will play a vital role in facilitating the
reopening process and in shaping public per-
ceptions of the state over the long term.
• Effectively responding to health crises requires
localized efforts to work with communities
affected by the crisis. For the education sector,
engaging teachers and teachers’ unions, school-
based management committees and other par-
ent organizations throughout can increase the
relevance of plans and compliance with govern-
ment interventions as schools reopen.
Communication strategies There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness
of specific communication strategies to support emer-
gency response. What is known strongly suggests that
communication content should be clear and credible,
and be disseminated in a manner aligned with local
norms. The best communication channels for reach-
ing households will vary considerably across contexts
but, wherever possible, multiple channels should be
used to reach all groups. The “Signal Code” outlined
in the humanitarian and disaster literature argues
that not only does the public benefit from consistent
2 Planning for School Reopening and Recovery After COVID-19: An Evidence Kit for Policymakers
information about the crisis and reopening plans, it
has the right to it.
The evidence on effective communication strategies
following an emergency indicates that:
• Moving quickly to establish regular communi-
cation channels and messages focused on facts
and key messages can help manage fear during
response as well as facilitate school reopening.
• Information is best shared using sources judged
credible by communities. In the wake of COVID-
19, we have seen numerous ministries of edu-
cation combat misinformation campaigns.
Communities are much more likely to fol-
low guidance from sources that are nationally
well known and which they consider credible,
although it is important to be aware that source
credibility varies among groups and even within
countries.
• Communication channels should be selected
based on their potential reach and local norms.
Several methods have been proposed as chan-
nels for communicating response procedures
and reopening plans. Household surveys and
local norms about information acquisition can
be used to determine each method’s potential.
Many governments have already strengthened
radio, television, and mobile communications
during the crisis; these same channels could be
used to deliver reopening messages. For exam-
ple, SMS allows for direct communication to
community members at speed, and mass mes-
saging might provide a low-cost method for pro-
viding information, encouraging compliance,
and monitoring outcomes of school reopening.
Several ministries of education are also using
social media to communicate with parents about
COVID-19, but this approach will not be suitable
everywhere. Word-of-mouth via parent groups
and locally nominated individuals remains an
important communication channel, particularly
where literacy and connectivity rates are low.
• Research suggests that combining multiple
methods of communication could increase
uptake and influence public behaviour as
schools reopen. For example, television and
SMS messaging can complement one another
to strengthen a single strategy. Broadcasting
the same information in multiple formats can
make messaging more coherent. But be aware:
information that is inaccurate or conflicts across
modalities may lead to confusion and noncom-
pliance with reopening plans.
3
2 . Targeting Resources Where They Are Most Needed
Recommendations
To help ensure that resources are targeted in a
manner that supports a strong and equitable
reopening of schools, policymakers should:
• Coordinate actions and resources.
Under these exceptional circumstances,
managing competing priorities requires
coordination and exchange across orga-
nizations, which can provide incen-
tives that strengthen implementation of
reopening plans and improve efficiency.
• Use existing administrative and survey
data to identify risk factors and guide the
design of social transfer mechanisms.
Community inclusion and data privacy
should be prioritized at all stages.
• Gather high-frequency data early and
continuously throughout the reopen-
ing process to support implementation,
adaptation, and learning.
A strong and equitable reopening and recovery
requires the careful use of resources, which relies on
broad coordination, effective targeting, and continual
use of data to adjust and improve approaches.
Policymakers will want access to evidence support-
ing their planning and decision making, and to draw
on relevant experiences from elsewhere. This brief
summarizes the rigorous evidence available regarding
the targeting of resources to where the need is great-
est and identifies three recommended actions for
policymakers.
Summary of Evidence
Coordinating actions and resources Coordination and resources are critical components
of emergency response, but evidence is thin in these
areas. If systems are to “build back better” as schools
reopen, then resources available for education will
need to be maintained or, in some cases, increased.
During and after the crisis, resources will be pulled in
many directions, both within and outside the sector.
Under such exceptional circumstances, available evi-
dence shows that the management of competing prior-
ities—and targeted allocation of resources—will require
strategic coordination across sectors and agencies.
The evidence on coordinating actions and resources
during an emergency indicates that:
• Strategic coordination and clear communica-
tion between sectors and agencies can improve
the implementation of school reopening
plans. There should be clear channels of com-
munication and responsibilities across line min-
istries as well as among levels of government
(e.g., national, regional, local, and school lead-
ers). Evidence from the grey literature suggests
that focal points should be designated for each
level of response.
• Collaboration increases exchange and can cre-
ate incentives that strengthen reopening pro-
cesses. Evidence from past disaster recovery
efforts demonstrates that organizations bene-
fit by pooling knowledge and data, sharing best
4 Planning for School Reopening and Recovery After COVID-19: An Evidence Kit for Policymakers
practices, capitalising on economies of scale,
and expanding reach while avoiding dupli-
cating efforts. In the many instances where
collaboration across ministries and partners
remains weak, collaboration around the reopen-
ing of schools creates an opportunity for its
strengthening.
• Rapid response guidelines prioritize the use of
existing educational resources and infrastruc-
ture in the short term over the building of new
systems. Innovative solutions building on exist-
ing systems, including acceleration programs,
can support rapid school reopening within
existing resource and infrastructure constraints.
Targeting and inclusion School reopening strategies should use existing data to
target communities with the greatest need. Education
administrative data can be combined with informa-
tion from national household surveys and other read-
ily available sources. These data should be used to plan
reopening activities based on underlying risk factors
and knowledge of local resources and norms. Evidence
from past crises highlights the need to ensure data pri-
vacy and protection at every stage.
The evidence on strategies that use administrative and
survey data to enhance targeting and inclusion shows
that:
• School reopening plans should account for
underlying risk factors, including student
attendance rates, percentage of economically
disadvantaged students, student-teacher ratio,
average years of teacher experience, and the
presence of vulnerable groups—including girls.
Indicators for several of these risk factors exist in
annual school censuses and household surveys,
which could be used immediately.
• When targeting support to particular groups,
evidence from social transfers strongly suggests
that careful design and implementation of the
mechanism is the key determinant of effec-
tiveness. Any targeting approach will be imper-
fect, regardless of the inclusion criteria (e.g.,
geographic or means-based). What matters is
the careful use of data from multiple sources,
such as to enable targeting at multiple levels
(e.g., regional, provincial, district, and school
community).
• Failing to include those on the periphery of soci-
ety in response plans could risk their further
marginalization as schools reopen. Inclusive
community engagement is critical to disaster
response. COVID-19 will not affect all people
or communities equally. Several countries are
already using data-led strategies to identify out-
of-school children. Policy guidance related to
postdisaster education planning also highlights
how important it is to ensure that communica-
tion of risk-based information targets women at
all stages.
• Data privacy and protection must remain pri-
orities during crisis and response efforts. Evi-
dence from past crises suggests that the urgency
of data collection in an emergency can lead to
poor practices. Effectively targeting services to
the most vulnerable children and households
may require collecting sensitive information,
which will heighten the need to prioritize pri-
vacy and protection throughout the process.
Monitoring and adapting Response monitoring used during the crisis, including
phone surveys, can also be used to monitor reopen-
ing. Evidence from past crises supports community
involvement in the monitoring and evaluation pro-
cess. There is limited evidence specifically related to
5Targeting Resources Where They Are Most Needed
the monitoring of education systems as they reopen
following a crisis, which makes ongoing evaluation an
important source of knowledge to strengthen future
response.
The evidence on monitoring school reopening to sup-
port evaluation and adaptation suggests that:
• Data collected during the reopening phase
(from education or other sectors) can be used
to adapt implementation approaches and for
longer-term planning. Several initiatives have
begun to gather data during the COVID-19 cri-
sis, and may also be used to monitor reopening.
As the crisis shifts from response to reopening,
these data can be used to inform policy responses
aimed at mitigating impacts on schooling and
may be used to evaluate and adjust approaches.
• Including communities in decisions about
what is monitored as schools reopen, and
how, could have long-term impacts on school
participation and achievement. It is crucial to
decide early on what data will be needed to mon-
itor reopening, and how they will be collected
and used to monitor progress and, later, to eval-
uate the process.
6
3 . Getting Children Back to School
Students, teachers, and households are facing new
pressures on their time and resources that will make
reenrolment challenging for some families as schools
reopen. Governments should implement univer-
sal campaigns to encourage enrolment and consider
additional measures to support the transition back to
school, including cash transfers and school meals tar-
geted to the most vulnerable.
Policymakers will want to access evidence to support
their planning and decision making and to draw on
relevant experience from elsewhere. This brief sum-
marizes the available rigorous evidence related to
getting children back to school and identifies two rec-
ommended actions for policymakers based on that
body of evidence.
Summary of Evidence
Encouraging reenrolment Very little rigorous evidence exists on student reenrol-
ment and school recovery after a crisis. This is an area
where current monitoring could greatly contribute to
future knowledge.
Available evidence suggests that governments can
identify and prioritize students who are the most likely
to drop out by using existing data on risk factors, such
as precrisis attendance rates and relative economic
disadvantage. In Sierra Leone, an intervention to pro-
vide protective spaces during the Ebola crisis allowed
young girls to allocate time away from men, prevent-
ing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and enabling them to
reenrol in school postcrisis. The program of safe spaces
and skills training almost entirely reversed the large
(16 percentage point) dropout rates among adolescent
girls without access to the program. Other experience
from Sierra Leone suggests that flexible approaches
may be needed to reenrol students who have new
demands on their time.
There is also a large body of evaluating evidence from
nonemergency settings that provides insight into how
to use information campaigns and community partic-
ipation to increase enrolment. Much of this evidence
remains relevant to reopening and recovery after
COVID-19.
Evidence on encouraging reenrolment after a crisis
indicates that:
• Community participation is at the heart of
disaster recovery and can support reenrol-
ment efforts. Effective strategies include financ-
ing parent-teacher associations, working with
local political and school management groups,
and creating opportunities for community
monitoring.
Recommendations
To encourage and support the reenrolment of
all students, policymakers should:
• Combine community participation and
large-scale direct communication cam-
paigns to parents, and consider increas-
ing attendance options to accommodate
all children, including those with high-
est risk of dropping out.
• Provide financial or in-kind support,
such as school feeding, to help families
overcome the increased costs of attend-
ing school.
7Getting Children Back to School
• Large-scale direct communication with stu-
dents and parents can also increase enrolment
and attendance. Proven interventions in this
category include sending reminders and nudges
via SMS, information campaigns to communi-
cate the benefits of education, and working with
role models to share education success stories.
• Administrative approaches to increasing flex-
ibility, such as double-shifting, are common
in crisis-affected contexts, but their impacts
are largely unknown. Despite its popularity,
there is no rigorous evidence on the effective-
ness of double-shifting in crisis settings. Evi-
dence from stable low-income countries shows
that it can increase access and enrolment—and
that it may increase opportunities for formerly
out-of-school-children to enrol once the schools
reopen. Over the longer term, however, a reduc-
tion in contact hours may reduce learning,
particularly in the poorest schools. Other prom-
ising changes to the school environment include
improving school WASH (water, sanitation, and
hygiene), which has been shown to increase
enrolment and attendance, particularly among
girls, although this is not always the case.
• Newly vulnerable children who are not able
to return to regular school environments will
still need opportunities to enrol and learn.
Some children may be at greater risk and danger
of infection during this current pandemic, so
some families may not be able to send their child-
ren back to school. Very little evidence yet exists
on the effects of COVID-19 on children with
comorbidities, such as preexisting respiratory
illness or immune dysfunction. Households with
affected children—or in which other family
members are at significant risk—may choose to
avoid schools even if they reopen. Reenrolment
plans should find locally relevant means of pro-
viding opportunities to learn for these newly
vulnerable students.
Overcoming increased costs of school attendance Rigorous evidence suggests that financial support to
vulnerable households is critical to getting children
back to school. Recovery efforts must help families
overcome new financial constraints and the oppor-
tunity costs of schooling. Strategies could include
school-related fee reductions, subsidies, and house-
hold cash transfers.
According to data from Liberia’s high-frequency phone
survey, initiated during the Ebola epidemic, one in four
households with children over the age of 12 reported
that one month after reopening, their children had not
returned to school; and reenrolment rates were lower
among girls than boys. Eighty percent of these house-
holds cited a lack of money as the primary reason for
their child’s nonreturn.
Income shocks to poor households may induce parents
to take their children out of school and send them to
work. When schools were closed during Sierra Leone’s
Ebola outbreak, many of the approximately 3 million
children living in communities affected by the disease
carried out petty trade or other forms of work to sup-
port the survival of their households. Once withdrawn
from school due to parental unemployment or disas-
ters, many children will not subsequently reenrol.
While measures should be taken to reduce the need for
children to work, it is possible that some students will
need to continue working while they attend school,
and this will require flexible solutions.
Evidence regarding providing support to households
in overcoming the costs of schooling shows that:
• Financial support, including cash transfers,
can reduce the financial burden and opportu-
nity costs faced by families sending their chil-
dren back to school. Intervention findings in
noncrisis settings suggest that transfers to poor
households in underserved regions offer the
highest return, especially where labour mar-
ket opportunities for children are likely to draw
them away from school.
8 Planning for School Reopening and Recovery After COVID-19: An Evidence Kit for Policymakers
• School meals can encourage reenrolment and
attendance. Many governments, including
some in collaboration with the World Food Pro-
gramme, have arranged to continue providing
school meals while the schools are closed. The
shock associated with the crisis could increase
the numbers of those in need of such resources.
Offering school meals and basic necessity kits
could incentivize and make reenrolment possi-
ble for some, particularly the most vulnerable.
• Fee waivers may support reenrolment. Such
waivers were used in post-Ebola Sierra Leone.
There is no rigorous evidence on how they
influenced reenrolment, but extensive litera-
ture supports the removal of fee barriers as a
means of increasing enrolment and retention,
with some studies showing larger enrolment
benefits among students considered to be at risk
of withdrawing. Where fees are levied—which is
common among secondary schools in many con-
texts—social transfers have been used to reduce
financial constraints and increase enrolment.
The removal of other costs, such as for uniforms,
have also shown strong positive impacts on
school participation in several countries.
9
4 . Making School Environments Safe
Maintaining the health and safety of people and envi-
ronments will be more important than ever before
in the aftermath of the COVID-19 school closures. To
make school environments safe, additional health and
hygiene measures should be implemented, and school-
based psychosocial and nutritional support should be
extended to students to strengthen their overall health
and well-being in the wake of the pandemic.
Policymakers will want to access evidence to support
their planning and decision-making and to draw on
relevant experience from elsewhere. This brief sum-
marizes the available rigorous evidence related to
making school environments safe and identifies four
recommended actions for policymakers based on that
body of evidence.
Summary of Evidence
Health and safety measures Priorities for education-focused efforts after the coro-
navirus pandemic should include ensuring that school
infrastructure and facilities are safe, that rooms are
clean and disease-free, and that staff are prepared to
prevent the spread of disease in the event of a future
outbreak.
Evidence on the impacts of improving school-based
health and safety measures remains thin; it should
be strengthened as schools around the world reopen.
Existing evidence points to the importance of making
sure that schools are equipped with adequate health
and hygiene infrastructure and monitoring capabil-
ities, that students and staff practice regular hand-
washing, that schools have access to sufficient hand
sanitizer, and that students and staff are continuously
screened for temperature and symptoms.
Recommendations
To provide safe school environments follow-
ing a pandemic, policymakers should:
• Pair school-based hygiene promotion
with the distribution of waterless hand
sanitizer and/or soap (where hand-
washing stations are already available).
• Consider school-based screening for
fever and cough, which may reduce
risk and improve confidence, but
which does not by itself offer a reliable
solution.
• Train and support teachers and other
school staff to offer school-based psy-
chosocial support to returning students.
• Prepare for a spike in the number of
students with malnutrition and other
unmet basic needs.
Evidence on good school health and safety after a crisis
shows that:
• Distribution of alcohol-based hand sanitizer is
likely to offer an effective, scalable solution for
hand hygiene for the prevention of COVID-19
transmission, especially where running water
is limited. A substantial body of evidence, largely
from wealthy countries, shows that young chil-
dren in particular are more likely to use water-
less hand sanitizer consistently, when available,
than they are to use soap and water. Programs
10 Planning for School Reopening and Recovery After COVID-19: An Evidence Kit for Policymakers
that supply hand sanitizer for use in classrooms
and day care centers have recorded substantial
reductions in diarrheal and respiratory illnesses.
Alcohol-based hand sanitizer is highly effec-
tive against COVID-19 and recommended for
use by the WHO. Compared with major WASH
(water, sanitation, and hygiene) infrastructure
upgrades, it is easy to distribute and deploy.
• Despite a mixed track record on water and
sanitation interventions in schools, access to
hygiene supplies and handwashing promo-
tion can help prevent the transmission of com-
mon infectious agents. Globally, school-based
handwashing programs have been inconsistent
in preventing common childhood conditions,
such as diarrhea, respiratory infections, and
soil-transmitted helminths. WASH interventions
appear to be more effective when they are well
implemented, when they effectively target the
sources of disease transmission, and when they
combine supply-side measures with behaviour-
change approaches.
• School-based temperature screening has
been a part of containment for previous out-
breaks, but its effectiveness against COVID-19
remains uncertain. Following the Ebola-related
closures of 2014–2015, school reopening proto-
cols included daily temperature checks at the
school gate, but it is unclear whether these mea-
sures reduced transmission. During the SARS
epidemic, Singapore issued a thermometer to
every student and mandated twice-daily tem-
perature checks. This helped restore confidence
among parents and students but did not lead to
any identification of cases. School systems could
consider screening children and school staff for
temperature and cough—the two most common
COVID-19 symptoms, but such an approach
would probably have low sensitivity (potentially
missing infected children) and low specificity
(potentially excluding noninfected children)
due to the prevalence of mild or asymptomatic
coronavirus in children and the high baseline
prevalence of cough and fever among young
children. Symptomatic screenings should com-
plement rather than substitute for hygiene and
distancing measures.
Child protection and well-being Crises and prolonged school closures can negatively
impact the well-being of children and adolescents. Evi-
dence suggests that armed conflict and environmental
disasters have multiple negative impacts on children
and their families, including the potential to increase
children’s engagement in dangerous forms of work.
Evidence from the Ebola crisis suggests that women and
girls were at a disproportionate risk of sexual exploita-
tion and early marriage as a result of prolonged school
closures. Household shocks resulting from the pan-
demic may also lead to higher rates of child malnutri-
tion and difficulty meeting basic needs.
The evidence on child protection and well-being after
a crisis shows that:
• Psychosocial and emotional support are often
needed in schools following crises. Evidence
from studies of conflict, natural disasters, pub-
lic health crises, and other humanitarian cri-
ses show that a child’s psychosocial well-being
can be negatively impacted by shocks. A rapid
systematic review of the impact of social isola-
tion suggests that children are likely to experi-
ence high rates of depression and anxiety during
social isolation and for several years after it ends.
Evidence from past humanitarian crises and
situations of displacement finds that teachers
trained in programs that prioritize learning and
social-emotional well-being can help improve
learning outcomes and student well-being fol-
lowing a crisis. The broader education work-
force, including nurses and counsellors, can
support children as they return to schools.
11Making School Environments Safe
• Differential support may be needed accord-
ing to gender and age. Following the Ebola epi-
demic, evidence suggests that adolescent girls
faced disproportionate risks and abuse while the
schools were closed. Interventions focused on
the empowerment and well-being of girls may
be needed as schools reopen.
• Schools should prepare for a spike in students
with malnutrition. During the Ebola epidemic,
76 percent of children in Sierra Leone reported
not having enough to eat; in the aftermath, acute
malnutrition spiked significantly. The World
Food Programme warns that the number of peo-
ple at risk of acute hunger may double by the end
of the year due to the coronavirus crisis. Surveys
suggest that many families are already eating
less and may quickly exhaust their household
resources. Quick and safe restoration of school
feeding programs is essential to help stem and
reverse nutritional losses.
12
5 . Recovering Learning Loss
To address learning loss, policymakers should con-
sider targeted programs for accelerated recovery and
use low-cost coaching and communication methods to
support teachers and engage parents.
Policymakers will want to access evidence to support
their planning and decision making and to draw on rele-
vant experience from elsewhere. This brief summarizes
the available rigorous evidence related to recovering
learning loss and identifies three recommended actions
for policymakers based on that body of evidence.
Summary of Evidence
Accelerated learningDecades of research shows that school closures are asso-
ciated with learning loss, with more pronounced effects
among low-income families. Accelerated learning pro-
grams are common interventions to support catch-up
efforts; they help students cover core academic mate-
rial in less time. Evidence suggests that accelerated
learning interventions focused on the basics can have
positive impacts on learning in developing countries,
particularly among those furthest behind.
As policymakers take steps to reverse learning loss
after the current crisis, they should keep in sight the
social and emotional needs of children. Social isola-
tion and loneliness are harmful to the mental health of
children. In addition to accelerated learning, research-
ers are urging governments to allow time for play and
socialization as children return to schools.
The evidence on recovering learning loss after a crisis
shows that:
• Simplifying the planned curriculum to acceler-
ate learning can support recovery when learn-
ing loss is likely to have occurred for entire
cohorts. While not rigorously evaluated, Sierra
Leone’s experience with simplifying and acceler-
ating a planned curriculum to cover two academic
years in one following the Ebola pandemic sug-
gests that accelerated learning can help get stu-
dents back on track. Variations of this approach
have shown positive results in other countries
as well. The idea is not to do more with less time
but rather facilitate quality catch-up with a sim-
plified curriculum of select core components to
cover thoroughly in the time available.
• Targeted, intensive programs focused on basic
literacy and numeracy can support acceler-
ated learning, particularly for those furthest
behind. Following prolonged closures, students
will return to school with varying levels of learn-
ing loss, possibly due to previous skill levels,
Recommendations
To recover learning loss following a pandemic,
policymakers should:
• Engage students in accelerated learning
interventions to reverse crisis-related
learning loss and strengthen future
learning trends.
• Engage teachers in training and coach-
ing so they can help students catch up,
and ensure that school environments
are safe and protected.
• Engage parents by capitalizing on their
current involvement in remote learning
to improve future outcomes.
13Recovering Learning Loss and Building Back Better
differential access to distance learning, or varying
home support during the closures. A robust body
of evidence indicates that instruction focused on
foundational literacy and numeracy skills tar-
geted at students’ individual levels, even for one
or two hours per day, can substantially improve
learning. This kind of targeting can be based on
a rapid performance assessment as students
return.
• Teacher-led learning camps and remedial
tutoring programs can support learning accel-
eration. Evidence suggests that learning camps
prior to and between school terms can support
student learning. Such camps provide focused
opportunities to accelerate the mastery of
basic skills. Carefully planned programs using
research-based instruction can be highly effec-
tive if students consistently attend. Studies find
positive impacts of high-quality remedial tutor-
ing for marginalized students who have missed
prolonged periods of schooling due to conflict or
displacement.
• Where connectivity allows, remote- and tech-
nology-based learning strategies can also sup-
port remedial and accelerated learning. Many
countries around the world have made impres-
sive progress in developing distance learning
platforms during school closures. When schools
reopen, these platforms could complement reg-
ular instruction to support learning recovery.
For example, evidence suggests that high-quality
adaptive-technology-aided after-school instruc-
tion programs can accelerate learning growth,
particularly for those furthest behind. How-
ever, while such remedial strategies can be use-
ful, they are not all the same. Simply providing
hardware—such as computers or tablets—with-
out carefully designed software is unlikely to
improve learning outcomes.
Supporting teachers and parents Evidence from past crises suggests that teachers need
new skills and capacities as they support student transi-
tions back to school, ensure safe school environments,
and provide remedial learning activities. Not only does
providing support to teachers offer the potential of
improved learning, such efforts have also been linked
to the improved well-being of students. While there
are many promising practices to strengthen teacher
development over the long-term, we offer evidence
on activities to support teachers and classrooms in the
immediate-term after schools reopen.
The pandemic has also forced the increased involve-
ment of parents around the world in their children’s
education while schools are out of session. This pro-
vides a unique opportunity for encouraging parents
to remain engaged over the longer term even as the
schools reopen.
The evidence on supporting teachers and parents after
a crisis suggests that:
• Regular coaching can support teachers as they
adapt to new demands. As schools reopen,
teachers will face the daunting task of support-
ing students in covering lost ground. They will
be operating in a modified environment and
will likely be delivering an irregular syllabus. All
of this requires new skills and capacities. For-
mal retraining will take time and substantial
resources. Evidence suggests that on-the-job
and virtual teacher coaching can help strengthen
teaching practices quickly and effectively.
• Leveraging the entire education workforce—
not only the teachers—may support learning.
Evidence suggests that engaging other education
professionals, volunteers, and peer-to-peer sup-
port as tutors, mentors, and additional help for
teachers can strengthen learning outcomes as
well as support vulnerable students, including
girls, in returning to and staying in school.
14 Planning for School Reopening and Recovery After COVID-19: An Evidence Kit for Policymakers
• There are several low-tech and low-cost options
to maintain high rates of parental engagement
in the schooling of children. Direct interven-
tions with parents via SMS or other channels
has been shown to increase and sustain their
involvement at home and at school, resulting
in large learning gains for their children. Past
interventions include informing parents of their
children’s learning levels, progress, and atten-
dance. Where feasible, personalized messages
may be more effective in strengthening parental
engagement than generic messages.
15Technical Appendices
Technical Appendices
Trust, risk, and community participation Without trust in government, support for reforms is
difficult to mobilize, particularly when short-term sac-
rifices are involved. Low levels of trust and widespread
concern about misinformation have been associated
with a decreased likelihood of following Ebola guide-
lines in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In Sierra
Leone, trust and community involvement led to an
increase in community monitoring and responsive-
ness to government policies, as well as perceived qual-
ity and use of services.
Perceived risk, more than actual risk, determines
a population’s reaction to a crisis. Any mismatch
between risk perception and actual hazard can reduce
compliance with government plans during recovery,
including returning to school. Information that is con-
flicting or that underestimates the severity of contin-
ued risk may lead to confusion or noncompliance with
recovery plans. When information is provided about a
crisis and its related risks, risk perception among par-
ents and school staff can quickly shift.
Recovery efforts will also be impacted by changes in
risk perception during the response. Before COVID-
19, SARS was the leading example of the widespread
use of nonmedical public health measures to contain
an infectious disease outbreak (e.g., social distancing).
The use of such measures impacted the public percep-
tion of risk—on one hand heightening the perception
of serious risk of infection and on the other providing
reassurance that actions were being taken to reduce
that risk. Highly visible public health activities, such as
temperature readings for children and wearing masks,
supported response and recovery in China during
SARS, and evidence from qualitative work suggests
that similar activities also supported recovery in Sierra
Leone after Ebola.
Evidence from the Ebola epidemic suggests that a
primary reliance on big data absent substantial com-
munity involvement in case reporting and recovery
planning slowed containment and the subsequent
recovery.
Strategies that leverage local social networks are bet-
ter able to draw on community information, tools, and
assistance to support faster recovery; and feedback
mechanisms allow affected communities to express
their opinions about the distribution of resources,
providing data to inform choices and increase
accountability.
Communication strategies There is limited evaluation evidence on the impact
of specific communication methods during a crisis,
which likely varies across contexts. Source credibility
is critical for effective response and recovery in an era
of mass communication and misinformation.
Internet connectivity is weak in many areas, but social
media and SMS can open new avenues for improving
strategic communications across various stages of a
crisis, including the promotion of the public’s com-
mon responsibility and cooperation. Mobile and radio
connectivity is more widespread and could serve as a
practical way of providing information to vulnerable
groups when face-to-face measures are not feasible.
Telephone information campaigns have been effective
in relieving anxiety and improving knowledge about
a crisis among vulnerable adults. The gray literature
Evidence Appendix 1. Engaging Communities in School Reopening Plans
16 Planning for School Reopening and Recovery After COVID-19: An Evidence Kit for Policymakers
strongly underlines the central role of local communi-
ties in the dissemination of information. The choice of
communication channels should ultimately be deter-
mined by local resources and communications norms.
Utilizing national household surveys to determine
household access to various forms of communication
technology is a good place to start.
Combining multiple forms of media likely sup-
ports communication efforts. For example, a media
campaign paired with a telephone hotline positively
impacted beliefs and behaviours following Hurricane
Katrina in the United States. In Singapore, an effective
integrated communication campaign during the SARS
crisis included television, press conferences, adver-
tisement, booklets, posters, and a public hotline for
anyone seeking information and for providing feed-
back. Mixed-media campaigns have also been used
to encourage school enrolment programs and health
care compliance in nonemergency settings.
Evidence Appendix 2. Targeting Resources Where They Are Most Needed Coordinating actions and resources While this is a challenging area in which to generate
rigorous evidence, the disaster response literature
finds evidence that strategic coordination and clear
communication among sectors and agencies improves
implementation of response and recovery plans. A
study examining disaster response and recovery fol-
lowing a major earthquake in Haiti found that collab-
oration increases exchange and can create incentives
that strengthen recovery. The findings suggest that
organizations benefit from pooling knowledge and
data and from sharing best practices; leveraging
comparative advantage and economies of scale; and
expanding reach while avoiding duplication of efforts.
Targeting and inclusion Disasters do not impact all groups in the same way. The
poorest, women, those with disabilities, and otherwise
disadvantaged groups often experience dispropor-
tionate negative impacts during and in the aftermath
of disasters. A study examining school attendance fol-
lowing Hurricane Katrina in the United States found
that schools with a higher proportion of economically
disadvantaged students had more difficulty recovering
following the crisis. A study on disaster preparedness
and recovery in the Philippines found that poorer and
less educated households were less prepared for disas-
ters and faced greater challenges during recovery.
Substantial evidence from social transfers, including
those targeting children, suggests that targeting is key
to intervention effectiveness, a lesson relevant to crisis
recovery as well. The effectiveness of targeting is shaped
by program design features, including group eligibility,
location selection, and relative allocation of benefits. A
quantitative study comparing targeting mechanisms in
social transfer programs in sub-Saharan Africa found
community targeting to be an effective tool for targeting
those who would most benefit from the program.
While it is critical to target the most vulnerable during
and after crises, evidence from the literature also cau-
tions that crises may increase the number of poor and
can lead to new vulnerable groups. A study in Bangla-
desh tracking child malnutrition following a severe
three-month flood found evidence of a “crossover”
phenomenon in which the nutritional status of tar-
geted children improved while malnutrition increased
among some who were not initially targeted. This sug-
gests that it is important to assess changes in vulner-
ability resulting from a crisis and that recovery may
require broader targeting than an initial emergency
response.
17Technical Appendices
Monitoring and adapting It is likely that traditional data collection methods—
school census and large-scale face-to-face surveys—are
disrupted by the crisis. Using mobile phones to conduct
short and frequent surveys can produce high-quality
data more quickly—and more cheaply on a per survey
basis—than traditional methods. Mobile phone surveys
were found to be valuable tools for crisis monitoring
during the Ebola epidemic in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Liberia’s Institute of Statistics monitored the impacts
of Ebola through a monthly phone survey, providing
data on schooling and broader economic impacts that
might affect recovery.
Evidence from Uganda suggests that creating oppor-
tunities for community engagement, allowing partici-
pants to influence how and what they will monitor and
manage, delivers strong impacts on achievement and
absenteeism.
Evidence Appendix 3. Getting Children Back to School
Encouraging reenrolment Carefully designed approaches to strengthen school–
community linkages have had positive and substantial
impacts on attendance. Leveraging parent associations
and motivating participation by involving parents in
the management of school grants has improved enrol-
ment and retention in poor communities. Engaging
with local political structures may reinforce existing
school-based management arrangements. Another
promising example of local-level engagement is com-
munity monitoring of service levels and provider
responsibilities, which improves health service utiliza-
tion, quality of service delivery, and outcomes.
Examples of effective enrolment and attendance
strengthening include improving perceptions among
students of the benefits of an education by provid-
ing them with information on its returns, or hav-
ing an appropriate role model describe the benefits
of an education, such as a person sharing his or her
own success story with a household. Other effective
approaches include providing information to parents
on their children’s absenteeism—which may also pos-
itively impact siblings—and using high-frequency SMS
to communicate with parents in real time regarding
student attendance.
Overcoming increased costs of
school attendance Conditional cash transfer programs in which school
attendance is the condition has been shown to increase
educational achievements and mitigate the negative
impacts of household shocks. However, increases in
rates of educational attendance may occur without an
equivalent decline in the incidence of child labor and
mainly at the expense of child leisure. In some emer-
gency recovery phases, access to credit has been shown
to diminish the immediate financial burden on house-
holds, reducing the need for child labor.
18 Planning for School Reopening and Recovery After COVID-19: An Evidence Kit for Policymakers
Evidence Appendix 4. Making School Environments Safe
significantly decreased rates of diarrhea and vis-
its to health clinics among the younger siblings
of students.
• A multicountry program across primary schools
in Cambodia, Indonesia, and Laos, which
included daily handwashing with soap as a
group activity in addition to a deworming treat-
ment, did not reduce parasitic infections or the
prevalence of underweight, although this may
be attributable to an unexpectedly low parasitic
prevalence at baseline.
• In rural China, the promotion of handwashing,
the provision of soap, and the training of peer
hygiene monitors reduced illness-related school
absences by more than 50 percent.
• In Cairo, children required to wash their hands
twice a day (a behaviour reinforced with health
messages) saw major reductions in influenza-like
illness (40 percent), laboratory-confirmed influ-
enza (50 percent), diarrhea (30 percent), and
conjunctivitis (67 percent).
• In Mali, a multifaceted school WASH interven-
tion was associated with decreased rates of diar-
rhea and lower respiratory infections. Greater
adherence to the handwashing component
was associated with decreased rates of school
absence.
• In Bihar, a school-based behaviour change pro-
gram to encourage handwashing with soap pro-
duced only modest increases (4.4 percentage
points) in the prevalence of handwashing with
soap.
• In Peru, school-based handwashing promotion
improved handwashing behaviour but had no
impact on evaluated health outcomes.
Health and safety measures There is no rigorous evidence that we know of on the
impact of WASH interventions in schools following
a crisis. Some evidence suggests that outbreaks may
lead to the long-term adoption of healthy habits, such
as handwashing, even after the immediate crisis has
passed. With appropriate recovery planning, it may
be possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the various
health and safety measures that are being used during
the current crisis.
In nonemergency settings, WASH interventions in
schools show a mixed track record of implementing
preventative measures including handwashing sup-
plies or efforts to change handwashing behaviour—
the component of WASH most relevant for COVID-19
transmission.
• In Laos, where primary schools were upgraded
with running water, handwashing stations, and
other upgrades, and following a behaviour-
change campaign, there were no significant
recorded improvements in rates of diarrhea,
respiratory infection, conjunctivitis, or
soil-transmitted helminthiasis (STH) infections.
• In Kenya, a multifaceted school-based interven-
tion—which included water treatment, water
containers for hand washing and drinking
water, latrine construction, and hygiene promo-
tion—helped reduce reinfection with one hel-
minth among girls but had no impact on three
other STH infections. The intervention substan-
tially reduced diarrhea among children without
access to drinking water from other improved
sources but did not reduce it among those who
could access an improved water supply within
one kilometer, which may suggest that clean
drinking water rather than handwashing drove
the observed gains. The intervention also led to
19Technical Appendices
A substantial body of evidence suggests that alco-
hol-based waterless hand sanitizer is a highly effective
substitute for handwashing, particularly for younger
children who may find it difficult to adhere to proper
handwashing techniques. Although such hand sanitiz-
ers are not as effective as soap and water under per-
fect-use conditions, particularly against some bacterial
agents, the World Health Organization and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention recommend their
use against COVID-19, and studies have confirmed
their high levels of efficacy.
• In Nairobi’s primary schools, the availability of
waterless hand sanitizer was associated with
reduced prevalence of rhinorrhea (but not with
statistically significant declines in gastrointesti-
nal or respiratory illnesses). Children were more
likely to clean their hands after using the toilet
if hand sanitizer was available (compared with
soap and water).
• Substantial evidence from wealthier countries
shows young children with access to waterless
hand sanitizer are more likely to clean their
hands—and have substantially lower risk of diar-
rheal and respiratory disease and related absen-
teeism—than children with access to soap and
water alone.
The evidence base for school-based management
of outbreaks also remains thin. Use of thermome-
ter-based screening coupled with teacher training on
the management of suspected cases may allow teach-
ers to detect fever in children upon school entry and
exclude ill children from entry. Schools could also
consider prohibiting entry to a child with a cough.
Evidence on the utility of a symptomatic screen-
ing-and-exclusion approach is limited and compli-
cated by the relatively high prevalence (and potential
transmissibility) of asymptomatic (or presymptomatic)
COVID-19 infection in children, as well as widespread
endemicity of other respiratory and febrile diseases.
• Following the Ebola-related closures of 2014–
2015, school reopening protocols in Sierra Leone,
Guinea, and Liberia included daily temperature
checks at the school gate plus soap/chlorine dis-
tribution and installation of handwashing sta-
tions. As of August 2015, UNICEF reported zero
known instances of a teacher or student becom-
ing infected with Ebola at a school. It is unclear
whether transmission would have occurred in
the absence of these measures.
• During the SARS epidemic, Singapore issued
thermometers to every student and mandated
twice-daily temperature screening for all stu-
dents; any child with an elevated temperature
was excluded from school. Students with con-
sistently high temperatures were referred to a
health center for further examination. Tempera-
ture screening did not result in any case identifi-
cation but reportedly did help reassure students
and parents of school safety.
• Symptomatic screening for COVID-19 would
likely focus on observed temperatures and pres-
ence of a cough. However, this is likely to offer
a crude screening tool at best, excluding many
children without coronavirus infection while
missing others who are asymptomatic. Most
coronavirus infections in children are mild, and
many are asymptomatic—that is, they would
not be detected based on symptomatic screen-
ing criteria. We do not yet know the extent of
asymptomatic transmission in children, but
presymptomatic transmission in adults can be
extensive. On the flipside, mild coronavirus
symptoms may be indistinguishable from com-
mon childhood ailments. In children under five,
Demographic and Health Surveys across 182 low-
and middle-income countries (conducted
between 1986 and 2012) suggest a 38.4 percent
average prevalence of either cough or fever
within the two-week period prior to the survey
20 Planning for School Reopening and Recovery After COVID-19: An Evidence Kit for Policymakers
date and an 11.7 percent average prevalence of
both symptoms over the same period. These fig-
ures are not directly applicable to school-going
cohorts (e.g., older children)—and are likely out
of date—but nonetheless, they point to the diffi-
culty of distinguishing mild COVID-19 symptoms
from other common endemic infections.
Child protection and well-beingEvidence from studies of conflict, natural disasters,
public health, and other humanitarian crises show that
shocks can negatively impact psychosocial well-being
of children. School-based interventions and school-
based referral models are encouraged to help students
recover. Evidence from humanitarian crises shows
that supporting teachers during reconstruction can
improve the psychosocial well-being of students. Inter-
ventions such as the International Rescue Commit-
tee’s “Healing Classrooms” have had positive impacts
on children’s social emotional well-being following
a crisis across contexts. Following the Katrina hurri-
cane, cognitive behavioural therapy and self-reporting
helped reduce posttraumatic effects. Using available
resources within schools has shown positive effects.
The broader education workforce, including school
nurses and counselors, can also support the well-be-
ing of children returning to school. In Japan, for exam-
ple, support from teachers, nurses, and counselors
improved the long-term mental health of students.
As with other forms of crises and postcrises support,
targeting is important. A systematic review of 24 stud-
ies on mental health and psychosocial interventions in
conflict-affected areas highlights the predominance
of school-based interventions to support students
returning to school following a crisis. Despite overall
positive effects, the evidence suggests that the benefits
of such school-based interventions tend to be limited
to subgroups of children.
In some contexts, girls may require additional sup-
port following a crisis. High-quality girls empower-
ment and livelihood programs have been shown to
have strong positive effects on multiple measures of
girls’ empowerment, including persistence in school;
school-to-work transitions; a reduction in early mar-
riage and risky behaviours; improved networks, aspi-
rations for the future; and in some cases, parental
beliefs about education for girls, particularly in unsta-
ble contexts. Synthesis results suggest that high-quality
girls’ empowerment programs can: (1) be implemented
in environments prone to instability; (2) can shield
girls’ from the worst impacts of a crisis during a coun-
try-wide shock; and (3) are cost-effective.
Acute malnutrition can spike during a crisis. During
the Ebola crisis, 76 percent of children in Sierra Leone
reported not having enough food to eat; after the crisis,
rates of severe acute malnutrition rose significantly.
Initial signs suggest COVID-19 lockdowns have already
had a severe effect on food security. The World Food
Programme estimates that the number of people
at risk of acute hunger may double by end-2020 as a
result of the crisis. BRAC surveys across eight African
and Asian countries show that many households have
less than one week of food stocked (up to 90 percent
of households in Sierra Leone); in Liberia, 84 per-
cent of households report that food consumption has
dropped “a lot” since the start of the crisis. In Bangla-
desh, 14 percent of respondents report having no food
in their homes, and almost half of families have less
than three days of food. Prompt and complete resto-
ration of school feeding programs is crucial to blunt
nutritional losses and prevent further declines.
21Technical Appendices
Evidence Appendix 5. Recovering Learning Loss
Accelerated learning Targeted acceleration programs can support catch-up
and learning recovery, particularly for vulnera-
ble students. The Complementary Basic Education
Programme in Ghana, which provided literacy and
numeracy training to out-of-school children by volun-
teers in local communities, had positive impacts on the
students’ transitions to and success in public schools.
The “Speed School“ initiative in Ethiopia—an intensive
program targeting basic literacy and numeracy among
students who have dropped out—supported acceler-
ated learning growth for students returning to school.
Supporting teachers and parents Target instruction and focus on basic skills. Many
schools teach students grade-level material that is far
above their actual learning level, leaving them behind.
Ensuring students are taught at their actual level rather
than according to a curriculum or syllabus too advanced
for them has already been shown to be one of the most
cost-effective methods for improving learning.
This evidence will be even more relevant after the pan-
demic. After weeks and months of being at home, stu-
dents will likely be even further behind grade-level
syllabi, and the learning levels among students are
likely to be even more heterogeneous than before. This
will necessitate simple learning diagnostics to quickly
identify student levels and then target instruction in a
way that enables them to get “back on track.” Examples
of diagnostics include ASER-like tools, USAID and RTI’s
EGRA, the World Bank SDI, or UNICEF’s MICS learning
module. In addition, a dedicated focus on the basics,
such as numeracy and literacy, can rebuild the founda-
tion for mastery across all subjects.
In India, this type of joint approach—targeting instruc-
tion and focusing on the basics—more than doubled
the percentage of students in grades 3–5 who could
read a paragraph or story in just 50 days of 1–2 hours of
daily instruction. A tracking intervention in Kenya also
found substantial benefits for lower-achieving stu-
dents through better targeted instruction. Moreover,
while hardware-focused technology solutions have
yielded disappointing results for improved learning,
software-focused solutions for targeting and adapting
instruction to a student’s level have been successful.
Teacher coaching. As schools reopen, teachers face
the daunting task of teaching with an out-of-date syl-
labus and operating in a new and ever-changing envi-
ronment in which they have yet to receive full training.
A major challenge is how to best support teachers in
adapting to the new normal.
To this end, while there is mixed evidence on the
effectiveness of traditional desk-based teacher train-
ings, on-the-job teacher coaching programs have
been shown to improve learning in meta-analyses and
were a key ingredient in a recent high-profile national
scale-up of Tusome, a successful education reform in
Kenya. On-the-job coaching was found to be twice as
effective as centralized training in South Africa, and a
follow-up study using virtual coaching found it to be
just as effective as onsite coaching.
As schools reopen, policymakers should consider how
to integrate coaching support into daily teaching prac-
tice. This could take the form of networks within a
school, regional administrators, or video coaching in
a low-tech environment—such as shared WhatsApp
coaching groups. Effective coaching can enable real-
time adaptation—needed now more than ever.
Engage parents with “low-tech” approaches. The
pandemic is a unique shock that has called parents to
increase their involvement in their children’s educa-
tion while schools are closed. This provides an oppor-
tunity to engage parents over the longer term, after
schools reopen. While in many high-income countries,
the internet is widely available, less than 40 percent of
households in low and lower-middle income countries
have internet access. However, almost 80 percent do
22 Planning for School Reopening and Recovery After COVID-19: An Evidence Kit for Policymakers
have access to a mobile phone—a low-tech avenue for
engaging parents through SMS and telephone calls.
Direct intervention with parents via SMS has been
found to support an increase in engagement with their
children in the home and at school. This engagement
has resulted in learning gains during early childhood.
Research has also shown that many parents are misin-
formed about their children’s learning level, and that
using low-cost SMS technology to communicate more
accurate information can help revise their beliefs. This
enables parents to demand accountability and pro-
vide at-home complements to activities in the class-
room, which can then improve the learning outcomes
of their children, as examples in the United States
and Chile illustrate. Similar interventions designed to
improve the information available to parents have also
been shown to help increase accountability and per-
formance within schools. In Niger, a randomized trial
showed that calling different stakeholders within vil-
lages to monitor teacher attendance and performance
increased student learning by 0.12–0.15 standard devi-
ations. Biannual report cards in Pakistan substantially
impacted student learning, allowed parents to make
more informed choices, and provided better account-
ability to the schooling market.
To this end, engaging parents now—while they are act-
ing as short-term educational providers— and lever-
aging this to strengthen their ongoing involvement in
instruction, motivation, and accountability, can serve
to complement the school system and classroom based
learning as schools reopen, with the potential for
far-reaching benefits for student learning.